PSYC - Ch 4 Flashcards
Research Ethics - Responsibility Towards
Participants - ensure welfare, dignity, safety of participants (human and non-human)
Science - ensure public reports of research are accurate and honest
Belmont Report
Ethical principals identified by the national commission
- Respect for person (autonomy)
- Beneficence
- Justice
Research Ethics Historical Roots
Nuremburg Trials - Trial for experiments performed on prisoners in Nazi camps.
Led to the Nuremberg Code - set of 10 guidelines for ethical treatment of humans in research
Milgram - Electric Shocks
Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS) - Canada
Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans
- Respect for Persons
- Concern for Welfare (beneficence)
- Justice
No Harm
Protection from physical and psychological harm
Risks identified, minimized, justified
Participants informed of the risks
Post-experiment assistance offered
Informed Consent
Participants be informed of what will be done to them and the purpose of the study
Voluntary/not coerced participation
Right to withdraw anytime
Children & vulnerable populations - assent from participants & consent from guardians.
Indigenous populations - consent must be sought from gatekeepers of those communities.
Deception
Passive deception (omission) - leave out info
Active deception (commission) - alter information
Participants must be debriefed
Placebo - inform participants they may or may not be in that group
Anonymity
Data not allowed to be shared for the identification of an individual
Assigne numbers, pseudonyms
Group data is reported, not individual
Confidentiality
Only research team can assess data
Password protection, encryption, locked cabinets
Public Info and Consent
Research that relies exclusively on publicly available information does not require consent when:
- the info is legally accessible to
public and protected by law - the info is publicly accessible and no reasonable expectation of privacy
Observation & Consent
Consent is not required for the observation of people in public spaces where:
- there is no intervention staged by the researcher, or direct interaction with the individuals or groups;
- there is no reasonable expectation of privacy
- dissemination of research results does not allow identification of specific individuals.
Internet and Consent
Can we treat info as public?
Two major problems:
- Expectation of privacy
- Persistence & traceability of quotes
Informed consent is required when there is an expectation of privacy.
What is private? Subscription sites? Privacy depends on each group, can sometime be found in FAQs
- Members of internet communities do not
expect to be research subjects - will likely see data collection as an invasion of privacy
Internet and Traceability
How to protect anonymity when quotes are permanent and traceable?
Do not identify the name of the online community or provide the website address
Anonymise and paraphrase quotations + use search engines to ensure they are not traceable
Use composite instead of direct quotes
Why do animal research
To learn more about animals
To learn more about humans
To conduct research impossible to do with humans
Animal Ethics - Historical Roots
Medical Research Council mandated an investigation into the care and use of experimental animals in Canada
Created Canadian Council for Animal Care (1968)
Anomal Ethics - Three Rs
Replacing/Avoiding animals
Reducing # of animals
Refining care/procedures to minimize pain and distress
Animal Ethics - Guidelines
Proper care, treatment, maintenance
Handlers must be properly trained (CCAC)
Ethics Committees
All researchers must apply to a research ethics committee for permission/approval
Committees exist in universities and funding agencies.
Scientific Integrity
Error vs Fraud (erratum/retraction)
Data fabrication/falsification of findings
Plagiarism
Ghost-writing/fake peer review
Safeguards = replication, peer review & watchdogs (retraction watch - blog started in 2010 to keep track of bad science - 50% due to fabrication/falsification/plagiarism) - 10% due to forged authorship, fake peer review, no ethics approval)
Wakefield Study Flaws - MMR vaccine leads to autism
- 12 children in the study; not randomly selected but recruited through anti-MMR vaccine campaigners
- researcher hired by lawyers for families suing MMR vaccine maker
- she fabricated findings and altered data to suit hypothesis
- claimed children were ”normal” prior to vaccine; 5 had prior developmental problems.
- Reported that 9 children developed regressive autism; only 1 did.
- For these 9 children changed gut examination results from “unremarkable” to “non-specific colitis”.
- For all 12 children, case descriptions contradict medical records and parent accounts.
